What is the worst thing for apologists to defend?

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:40 pm

Zelph?

Book of Abraham?

King Follet discourse?

1835 Edition of the D&C?

Polygamy?

Lack of evidence around Cumorah supporting the battles?

Cumorah's cave that contains gold plates stack to the ceiling?

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:42 pm

in my opinion, the Priesthood ban. But, to me it isn't the "worst" as in it's the "hardest." It's the "worst" because there is too much justification that goes on trying to make it of G-d.

That's just me though.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:45 pm

What is the explanation for God excluding Moabite converts until the 10th generation, and then inconsistently letting Ruth in, with her grandson David, into the congregation?

What is the explanation for God excluding bastards until the 10th generation; castrated men?

It seems that God was rather ambiguous about this stuff. Why is it?

Post by **_ozemc** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:54 pm

rcrocket wrote:What is the explanation for God excluding Moabite converts until the 10th generation, and then inconsistently letting Ruth in, with her grandson David, into the congregation?

What is the explanation for God excluding bastards until the 10th generation; castrated men?

It seems that God was rather ambiguous about this stuff. Why is it?

Because the Bible was written by men, for men. And included all their various biases and prejudices.

Somehow I really don't think God, if there is one, actually cares what goes on on this little planet that is not even in the center of its own galaxy.

You know, it's been said (Sagan, maybe? I don't know, just heard it somewhere), that there are more planets in the universe that are exactly like this one than there are grains of sand on this planet.

We're not that special.

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:55 pm

rcrocket, you are blowing smoke. That has nothing to do with the thread.

Based on our thread today about how you believe the Cumorah in NY is the same one in the Book of Mormon story, I'd venture to guess that should be one on your list... especially since NONE of the LDS BYU Maxwell Institute sanctioned apologists do not stand behind you.

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:56 pm

rcrocket wrote:What is the explanation for God excluding Moabite converts until the 10th generation, and then inconsistently letting Ruth in, with her grandson David, into the congregation?

What is the explanation for God excluding bastards until the 10th generation; castrated men?

It seems that God was rather ambiguous about this stuff. Why is it?

rcrocket,

I assume this was directed at me. The difference between these things (assuming they are accurate accounts of the events) and the priesthood ban is that G-d did not implement the priesthod ban.

With the priesthood ban (at least from my studies) it appears to have been implemented by man and not G-d. Although the lifting of the ban was by G-d, the implementation of it wasn't.

There is no "Why did G-d do it?" in regards to the priesthood ban, because He didn't do it. At most, there's a "Why did He allow it to go on for so long?"

Post by **_SatanWasSetUp** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:58 pm

rcrocket wrote:What is the explanation for God excluding Moabite converts until the 10th generation, and then inconsistently letting Ruth in, with her grandson David, into the congregation?

What is the explanation for God excluding bastards until the 10th generation; castrated men?

It seems that God was rather ambiguous about this stuff. Why is it?

And how well do those arguments work? I think Suess is correct that it is hard to defend because all the accepted defenses don't admit it was wrong, but in fact claim it was right and give reasons for it being right.

I think the top 2 most difficult would be the Book of Abraham from a logical point of view, and polygamy from an emotional point of view, but I'm not an apologist and I'm interested what they find to be the hardest issues to defend.

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:01 pm

Doctor Steuss wrote:
rcrocket wrote:What is the explanation for God excluding Moabite converts until the 10th generation, and then inconsistently letting Ruth in, with her grandson David, into the congregation?

What is the explanation for God excluding bastards until the 10th generation; castrated men?

It seems that God was rather ambiguous about this stuff. Why is it?

rcrocket,

I assume this was directed at me. The difference between these things (assuming they are accurate accounts of the events) and the priesthood ban is that G-d did not implement the priesthod ban.

With the priesthood ban (at least from my studies) it appears to have been implemented by man and not G-d. Although the lifting of the ban was by G-d, the implementation of it wasn't.

There is no "Why did G-d do it?" in regards to the priesthood ban, because He didn't do it. At most, there's a "Why did He allow it to go on for so long?"

Steuss, you are odd. You are barely religious, yet you fear typing out the word GOD.

Post by **_Trinity** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:02 pm

Honestly? I am not afraid to state my opinion that anyone who professes to believe in a catalytic theory for the PofGP is a CEO of fantasyland. Not only does the extent material not support, but it completely contradicts what Joseph Smith translated. So when someone bravely tries to contort themselves like a pretzel while defending a position that female Isis is really Pharaoh, or that Maat, the mistress of the gods is really the Prince of Pharaoh in drag, my BSometer goes off the charts. Not only do they make us all silly by asking us to completely suspend reason, but they also insist this silliness is a reflection of a god that would make people suspend their reason (something innately provided to humans in order to predict danger) for something that is a so-called important enough communication to man that it is canonized. Whenever I get into any indepth conversation about the Book of Abraham, I can almost hear Ockham rolling over in his grave.

Any defense of Joseph Smith's polyandry or the church's coverup of Joseph's practice of polygamy in any form also sets me off. There is just no defense. Don't attempt it. If you try to attempt it, I see nothing but the animal in you trying to rationalize the very primal instinct to spread seed wherever it can. There's nothing divine about it. It's about as base as can be. If you want to tell me "Joseph had a traumatic childhood and desparately wanted to rise about it and be someone of import so he accomplished this by creating an elaborate religion which included reproducing (or adopting) children and wives that would worship his name, and elevating sex to the status of eternal orgasmic divinity".....then we can perhaps use that statement as a sounding board for understanding Joseph Smith. But don't tell me God told him to make marriage and family the most important role in the eternal scheme of things and then ask Joseph to lie to his wife, condemn her to hell if she didn't join the ride on the polygamous train, and snatch already married women away from their spouses.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to rant. ;)

Post by **_asbestosman** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:03 pm

Perhaps the atonement.

I've never liked the whole debt analogy. If I can't die to pay the debt of a murderer, then how can God pay the debt of my crimes? What infinity buys us is a real mystery to me.

Maybe it's genocide in the Old Testament. Never could figure out why innocent infants and animals needed to die.